Simple reason why I do not think taxation = theft

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And why does a large group of anonymous people imply that they aren't free and independent to pursue their own happiness if they choose to?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's exactly what a large group of anonymous people implies as opposed to living in a "horde" with much stronger personal constraints. You've been misunderstanding me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll agree to disagree then. Not sure we'll get anywhere since we're working off different assumptions.

[Felz]

But is it efficient? Ever heard of the "tragedy of the commons"?

Or as A. Young put it:
"give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden, give him a nine years lease of a garden, and he will convert it into a desert" - "the magic of property turns sand into gold"

Kaj, as long as land is a scarce resource and as long as you don't assume that people actually account for the negative external effect they create for others by using it your concept is HIGHLY inefficient.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
But is it efficient? Ever heard of the "tragedy of the commons"?

Or as A. Young put it:
"give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden, give him a nine years lease of a garden, and he will convert it into a desert" - "the magic of property turns sand into gold"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this continent was much more of a garden under the principle of non-ownership before outsiders came and declared exclusive right to be a fundamental principle. I know there are other issues there, but there's a case in point. And in societies where non-ownership is a general principle, the "tragedy of the commons" doesn't seem to be the case at all. The Indians cared for the land with great respect and minimized their impact upon it. As did the Inuits. As do small communes all across the country today. And our public parks are generally well kept. In general, it's only in societies which advocate exclusive ownership of the land as a fundamental value that the commons are in peril. And in those societies, it would be disingenuous to deny that much of the destruction of the non-public land and resources occurs as well. Seen any buffalo or elk roaming Illinois lately? You should read how Lewis and Clark described the abundant wildlife, forests, streams, etc. of our nation's interior -- privatizing it all has certainly taken a toll.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what are the implications of this? If individuals do not have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for exclusive use, what does that mean? How would everyone in the world not immediately die out if this "right" were not recognized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do monkeys immediately die out just because they don't formally recognize a "right" to exclusive use of the land? Did the Inuits or Lakota?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about "formal recognition"? Perhaps we are getting off track because of the use of the term "right" (which I put in quotes for a reason). Let me ask again in a different way:

Is it wrong for a individual human being to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Is it wrong for individual monkeys to appropriate natural resources for their exclusive use?

[ QUOTE ]
The choice between recognizing the right to exclusive use of the earth or death of the species is clearly a false dichotomy. (Another topic someday might be how our belief in our exclusive right to use/abuse the land based on the principle "I was here first" actually threatens the long term survival of the planet and species more than shared use, but I don't want to get off track here.) Quite simply, just because I deny the "right" to exclusive use of the land based on the principle that "I was here first" does not mean I deny the land's use by humans. I think some are too wrapped up in their axiom on the right to exclusive use to open their mind to the fact that this isn't the only paradigm possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is what I'm trying to get to systematically. I don't believe in any such "right" at all. If such a "right" exists in a culture, it is merely a social norm, as would other options be. But we'll get there.

I find this discussion interesting, but not really the rest of the thread. Do you want to take it into a separate thread?

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, this continent was much more of a garden under the principle of non-ownership before outsiders came and declared exclusive right to be a fundamental principle. I know there are other issues there, but there's a case in point. And in societies where non-ownership is a general principle, the "tragedy of the commons" doesn't seem to be the case at all. The Indians cared for the land with great respect and minimized their impact upon it. As did the Inuits. As do small communes all across the country today. In general, it's only in societies which advocate exclusive ownership of the land as a fundamental value that the commons are in peril. And in those societies, it would be disingenuous to deny that much of the destruction of the non-public land and resources occurs as well. Seen any buffalo roaming Illinois lately?

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't work in large anonymous societies without interpersonal preferences that account for the negative externality associated with the use of common yet scarce resources. This only works within what I previously called hordes.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
This concern is fair. I would argue that before a social structure that I advocate would be possible, a large portion of those who would live under such a structure would need to have some general consensus on the values which the structure is based upon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what are the implications of this? If individuals do not have a "right" to appropriate natural resources for exclusive use, what does that mean? How would everyone in the world not immediately die out if this "right" were not recognized?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do monkeys immediately die out just because they don't formally recognize a "right" to exclusive use of the land? Did the Inuits or Lakota?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about "formal recognition"? Perhaps we are getting off track because of the use of the term "right" (which I put in quotes for a reason). Let me ask again in a different way:

Is it wrong for a individual human being to appropriate natural resources for his exclusive use? Is it wrong for individual monkeys to appropriate natural resources for their exclusive use?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't wrong to use a resource exclusively. To claim one has a right to this exclusive use based on the concept of self-ownership is wrong, however. Once we all admit it isn't wrong to use the earth's resources, but also not a right, then you can begin a meaningful debate on the merits of different social structures. Quite honestly, Boro, few on this board have done a really good job in acknowledging this starting point in the past. I think that might be changing.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The choice between recognizing the right to exclusive use of the earth or death of the species is clearly a false dichotomy. (Another topic someday might be how our belief in our exclusive right to use/abuse the land based on the principle "I was here first" actually threatens the long term survival of the planet and species more than shared use, but I don't want to get off track here.) Quite simply, just because I deny the "right" to exclusive use of the land based on the principle that "I was here first" does not mean I deny the land's use by humans. I think some are too wrapped up in their axiom on the right to exclusive use to open their mind to the fact that this isn't the only paradigm possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is what I'm trying to get to systematically. I don't believe in any such "right" at all. If such a "right" exists in a culture, it is merely a social norm, as would other options be. But we'll get there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you don't. But as I've mentioned in PM, there are those in the AC "camp" who fail to acknowledge this starting point is a social norm rather than a right derived from self-ownership or another axiom -- or at the very least, they have been somewhat reluctant to acknowledge this until recently (pvn has done so).

[ QUOTE ]
I find this discussion interesting, but not really the rest of the thread. Do you want to take it into a separate thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you trying to argue with that bolded statement? Nobody is denying the nourishment is his. I am only denying that he has a "natural right" to that nourishment for himself as opposed to somebody else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was showing CMI that Locke wasn't only talking about the question of "if resources can be owned...".

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is arguing that man can't survive without resources. I am arguing that you don't have a right to the earth's resources just because you claim them first or homestead an area. Nobody is saying food can't be eaten. Just that you don't have a natural right to the food of the earth just because you claim it first or homestead an area.

[/ QUOTE ]
By appropriating resources to yourself, you are exercising ownership over them. So if someone else comes along and tries to take the food from your hands, would you say that you have no right to deny him the food since you don't own it? Ownership implies a right to exclude others from using the owned thing. If that's true, your axiom is as nonsensical as "food cannot be eaten".

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are you trying to argue with that bolded statement? Nobody is denying the nourishment is his. I am only denying that he has a "natural right" to that nourishment for himself as opposed to somebody else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was showing CMI that Locke wasn't only talking about the question of "if resources can be owned...".

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is arguing that man can't survive without resources. I am arguing that you don't have a right to the earth's resources just because you claim them first or homestead an area. Nobody is saying food can't be eaten. Just that you don't have a natural right to the food of the earth just because you claim it first or homestead an area.

[/ QUOTE ]
By appropriating resources to yourself, you are exercising ownership over them. So if someone else comes along and tries to take the food from your hands, would you say that you have no right to deny him the food since you don't own it? Ownership implies a right to exclude others from using the owned thing. If that's true, your axiom is as nonsensical as "food cannot be eaten".

[/ QUOTE ]

By appropriating resources to yourself, you are exercising ownership over them.

Yeah, so? We were debating the "right" to such ownership, not the existence of it.

So if someone else comes along and tries to take the food from your hands, would you say that you have no right to deny him the food since you don't own it?

This is a "depends" situation based on our values, and thus there is no absolute "rights" in the matter. If I'm sitting on a silo full of grain that I plan to sell to buy a new plasma TV and my neighbor comes to take some grain to feed his starving daughter, then do I have a right to deny him? Does he have a right to take some? The answers to both are subjective based on our values -- there is no absolute right answer, only social norms/convention or personal values. You refuse to acknowledge this point.

Ownership implies a right to exclude others from using the owned thing.

Yeah, so? That still doesn't mean you have a right to own the earth or vast amounts of private property. You've defined ownership -- well great (I already knew what it meant, FWIW). You haven't demonstrated why you have a right to it.

If that's true, your axiom is as nonsensical as "food cannot be eaten".

No, it's not. My axiom of nobody can claim a right to exclusive use of the earth's resources does not imply that nobody can use the earth's resources. Take a second and think about that statement before proceeding, because I've already made it clear multiple times but it isn't settling in yet.

Edit: Incidentally, I believe you can agree that nobody can claim a right to exclusive use of the earth's resources and still strive for an AC-like society, you just can't justify your society on a moral axiom of "it's mine by right if homestead/claim it first".

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
By appropriating resources to yourself, you are exercising ownership over them.

Yeah, so? We were debating the "right" to such ownership, not the existence of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I don't have the right to do this, it should be ok for anyone to stop from exercising ownership over things, right?

[ QUOTE ]
So if someone else comes along and tries to take the food from your hands, would you say that you have no right to deny him the food since you don't own it?

This is a "depends" situation based on our values, and thus there is no absolute "rights" in the matter. If I'm sitting on a silo full of grain that I plan to sell to buy a new plasma TV and my neighbor comes to take some grain to feed his starving daughter, then do I have a right to deny him? Does he have a right to take some? The answers to both are subjective based on our values -- there is no absolute right answer, only social norms/convention or personal values. You refuse to acknowledge this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
There can be no "it depends" under your axiom. If you don't own the grain, it doesn't matter what situation the neighbor is in. You have no right to deny him any grain even if your neighbor is Bill Gates.

[ QUOTE ]

If that's true, your axiom is as nonsensical as "food cannot be eaten".

No, it's not. My axiom of nobody can claim a right to exclusive use of the earth's resources does not imply that nobody can use the earth's resources. Take a second and think about that statement before proceeding, because I've already made it clear multiple times but it isn't settling in yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
In order to be an axiom, it should be self-evident. What you have right now is an assertion. Maybe you should take a second to elaborate on this "axiom" because it certainly isn't self-evident to me and probably not to others as well.